Maybe not.

Some years back I discovered a book called For the Courage of the Founders by Tom Rancich.

In the book, Tom makes a stunning case that America’s Global War on Terror is not only an illusion but is counter to our most basic principles and American values.

In the book Tom makes some bold claims:

1) Terrorists are not a true threat to America.

2) Our own undermining of the Constitution IS a threat to America.

So who is Tom Rancich? Does he know what he’s talking about? He must be a Californian dope smoking, America-hating hippy right?

More on that in a second.

Terrorism Kills, but so do Cigarettes

The book goes on in great detail. With scientifically objective thinking, Tom points out that most scars left by terrorism are more emotional than of significant objective material consequence to our nation. Example: far more people die of cigarettes or obesity than terrorism, yet we don’t change our Constitutional values to fight junk food. In other words, terrorism hurts our ego more than it actually threatens us. What Tom does believe is that the increasing erosion of our freedoms by our own government is a significant threat. Although written after the passage of the Patriot Act, the book had not yet seen the suspicion-less highway stops, wiretaps, expansion of Homeland Security, full body scans and many other draconian controls initiated in recent years by Uncle Sam.

An additional side effect of the “War on Terror” is that while our soldiers, intelligence agencies and law enforcement officers are fighting a war against “terror” (an emotion), conventional threats such as large nations are going unmonitored or neglected. Did the huge number of Russian spies in the US suddenly go home just because the former KGB head became their leader? Domestically our FBI is so busy chasing terrorists that fraud and other serious crimes are ignored. (Yes, ignored. On more than one occasion I have reported financial fraud and theft to the FBI on behalf of clients and in all cases my clients have been ignored.)

So who is this Rancich guy?

Surely Rancich does not know anyone who wears a uniform and must be a coward right?

Well, it reminds me of one of the often repeated and extremely stupid things said by so many hawks who think war is cool: “How dare someone speak out against America’s actions if he never wore a uniform!” A preposterous notion that goes against the very values the speakers usually proclaim to support: a free, civilian-run society where the military is used for protection of rights of all citizens. So no, it doesn’t matter whether Rancich wore the uniform or not, his opinions are as valid as any citizen.

Anyway, propaganda being strong as it is, it’s understandable why many misguided people would attack someone who is anti-“War on Terror” as being against the troops or whatever other reason. Surely if some President went mad and sent troops to Canada it would not be be “un-American” to criticize that too. Chickenhawks can pick on hippies in Berkeley and Cambridge, use the word “liberal” as if it’s a slur and assume that anyone who questions why a soldier’s life should be risked is unpatriotic. They can continue to bash the anti-war-on terror crowd and assume that because they read a lot of Tom Clancy books or once did drills with Jr ROTC, that they are the real patriots and the anti-war crowd isn’t….

Trick is, with ole Tom the conversation might go something like this:

He thinks the Al Qaida threat is a myth? Must be a hippie soldier-hater. I know all about those kind from my armchair where I watch Bill O’Reilly talking tough.

Actually, he was in the US Navy.

Weekend-warrior reserves for a couple years right?

Actually he was a Lt Commander and served for 20 years.

Ahh, I see, a supply clerk medical officer who hid behind a desk in Chicago right?

Not exactly, he was a Navy SEAL Platoon Commander.

Hmm, Oh, …um… well then, he must have been some kind of umm desk SEAL right?

Fraid not, he served in and led SEAL missions in South America, Afghanistan and elsewhere and earned the Bronze Star for his actions in Afghanistan.

Okay fine. Well he just must be a misguided vet who doesn’t know much about terrorism like I do.

Well, actually he was Commander of Naval Special Operations in Afghanistan, Expeditionary Antiterrorism Officer and Director of the Combat Terrorism Warfare Innovation Development Team and was Commander of the Atlantic Fleet’s Antiterrorism Program.

Hmmm, Umm ohh. Well, my mind is already made up, don’t cloud it with facts!

Once the jaw-dropping stops and people realize that the author of this book has far more street-cred than Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Ted Nugent, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Matt Drudge or whoever else they might look to for military leadership, they might actually listen to a few things he has to say (wait I just noticed, none of those people ever did serve, interesting how keen they all are on sending others to die). Yes, Tom even has more credibility than all those Navy SEAL video games and movies. Maybe the hawks who take lightly the sending of American soldiers to die should revise their motto to say that only those who’ve worn a uniform should have the right to support a war.

Al Qaida is a Threat! O’Reilly told me so!

Rancich goes into exacting detail about how Al Qaida is not the sophisticated global threat our mass media would have us believe. Without the power to hold significant territory, command cities, blockade ports, control trade, sign treaties, levy taxes or engage in mass manufacturing or drafting of soldiers, Al Qaida is really nothing more than a not that large gang of thugs. Some estimate the number of Al Qaida to be 10,000 or so and the number of LA gang members to be 40-50,000. By the way, LA gangs have killed far more citizens than terrorists in the last decade.

Microsoft is a global network, points out Rancich, not some guys in caves whose most sophisticated technology is a satellite dish. The Nazi’s were a true threat, not these thugs with sticks and bombs. How does Rancich define threat? One cold comparison is made by Rancich between the tragedy of 9-11 and the attacks by the Nazis in WWII. In this war, the rough equivalent of a 9-11 sized attack occurred nearly daily for three years in England. The 9-11 attack, while tragic and horrible as Rancich and everyone else agrees, was not of sufficient scale to come close to destroying our way of life…unless we let it.

But What if the Terrorists Win?

Rancich goes into detail including the type, likelihood and feasibility of attacks ranging from another 9-11 to the dreaded dirty bomb, chemical attack or biological attack. He goes further to evaluate this in terms of historic significance and actual threat. A student of history and military tactics, Rancich uses knowledge of historic warfare standards to measure the chances of terrorists having meaningful impact on our ability to operate as a nation. Could Al Qaida conceivably “take Boston” for example? Sending US troops to skirmish for control of New York, Virginia or other areas as we did 200 years ago against the British? Surely not. Could they have meaningful impact on our food supply and trade such as a blockade? No. Could they destroy an entire city? Possibly. Could they attack us with 9-11 scale every single day for a year? Unlikely. But even in a doomsday scenario (which is very unlikely) our Constitution and our Republic could survive. Yes, terrorists could destroy a city. So could Americans. So why are we continually undermining the very fabric of what makes us great in the name of stopping “terrorism” while spending so much money, effort and time (and erosion of our rights) on something so statistically insignificant? “Would a drug company spend any effort to cure a disease that kills 4000 people every 200 years?” asks Rancich with cold, hard logic.

Have you no feelings?

Many will be quick to point out the loss of life and property resulting from 9-11, some even point out the enormous emotional cost of the attack as well as the changes we have made as a result (changes in civil liberties, creation of the Department of Homeland Security and others). Rancich doesn’t dispute this. Many argue that these very measures are a threat to our way of life far more than any terrorist. He who sacrifices freedom for security will have neither. This is exactly Rancich’s point: terrorists cannot defeat a country by any conventional means of measuring warfare success, terrorists only win if they succeed in terrorizing people to the point that the people undermine and defeat themselves.

As Rancich boldly points out: the terrorists cannot win, but we can lose.

If his words and opinions sound controversial, read his book yourself, it is available for download at tomrancich.com. Next time someone questions your patriotism, send them to Tom.

Bruce Fenton is an entrepreneur and editor of FentonReport a global economic newsletter, he served in the cub scouts.